It was reported in the mainstream media that a solution to the California budgetary crisis is expected by Sunday.  Apparently, there has been some concern in the Golden State due to the fact that it has been reported that some of the banks are refusing the IOUs which have been issued in order to fund governmental contractors which have not been paid due to this crisis.

And it is clear this is no more than a P.T. Barnum spectacle in order to gain more and more leverage with the California residents in the mess that has occurred due to that states progressive liberalism over the years.

Since California most of all, due to the continuing war in the Middle East, should be in the black and not the red at all if they were utilizing those public sums primarily for the state government's true Constitutional functions, rather than also funding special interests primarily with grant monies and no-bid contracts as occurs throughout the nation now in the corruption in state and municipal governments.

After all, Silicon Valley is the largest producer of all the now high tech security devices that are being installed throughout the nation, and one of the largest holder of federal contracts for technology needs in this continuing war, and are huge mega holders of U.S. government contracts.

And I wonder if this is actually the case, why the Hollywood elite have not thought of having their own benefit for the State of California instead of the next AIDS or PETA benefit.

Most of them due to their wealth and global holdings could float the state for a number of years if they were taxed at the rate the middle class actually is, or even the lower income workers - rather than having access to their offshore accounts, and tax attorneys who work the "privileges and immunities" on capital gains so well for all of them for their shell corporations, and trust accounts.  Rather than being taxed on the truth "worth" of their holdings or "property."

And California is primarily a liberal Democratic state or "blue" state, yet many of whose individuals are the direct beneficiaries of the claimed Republican favoritism for the wealthy on those capital gains benies.  Go figure.

In fact, while many of the people throughout the country are now facing homelessness and joblessness in increasing numbers, I read an article this week that David Arquette is planning on holding a sit in for the global Food for the Hungry in New York shortly in order to raise a few million in order to feed those living in third world countries.

I wonder if he has visited his local Los Angeles soup kitchen lately, since the class of individuals now is including the former middle class in increasing numbers.

Or why he didn't simply write a check from his own excess wealth instead of using it for a PR stunt and in order to "socialize" the donations for a cause in which he individually supports and believes?  He could donate his own wealth and it would take care of quite a number, I would suspect.  Or maybe the sums he pays to his tax accountant.

It was also interesting to note that California is not a right to work state, so many of the California public employees are outraged since they now feel they are being victimized by this also "budget crisis."  Since they are state employees and public servants, I wonder where in the California or U.S. Constitution it gives public employees the right to "unionize" in order to gain more taxpayer sums for themselves?  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is also playing politics with the issue (and just what other citizens in other countries does this U.S. "corporate" union claim it represents?)

Municipalities are nothing more than "state actors" for the states themselves, so this is truly confusing that state employees would be allowed to unionize to get more of the taxpayer bite to begin with.

Although the CPI and statistical data published by the U.S. Department of Labor is a joke in and of itself (artificially concocted due to the fact that most union contracts and salary increases are tied in directly to the CPI, so there is some also "creative accounting" on those figures that bear no actual relevance to the true increases in costs for many products and services), teacher's salaries have gone up at three and four times the rates of inflation, as have several other of the public service occupations.

And with California also primarily one in which there is an additional layer of government in most newer suburban  areas in the form of homeowners associations collecting taxes for former municipal services such as street repairs, street lighting and such, just wonder where all that revenue that the state has collected truly has gone?  Since they are collecting more revenue, but providing less each and every year and transferring those costs back onto the public in those "socialized" land ownership communities.

If they are under "balanced budgets" initiatives, just how are they also then entering into multi-year contracts then with developers and other government contractors to begin with?  How is that "legally" possible?

Sounds more like the classic case of fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation of funds is the true root of California's claimed budgetary woes.  And maybe a few too many of those Sacramento pow-wows and state benefits given to the likes of the Donald Trumps & Co. at the state resident's expense for the global tourism industry and U.S. Chambers agendas in turning the U.S. into nothing more than a tourist attraction and investment opportunity for foreigners. 

All at the cost of their fellow countrymen and their jobs and other "property" for their global monopolies and fellow "corporate" brothers and subsidiaries benefit at the ultimate price of the small businessesmen and any and all emerging American entrepreneurs due to their strangleholds now on a great many of the U.S. market due to favoritism and their "greased palms" political connections.

The delusion goes on.  And nowhere more than the home of the "OC," "Desperate Housewives," and "Californication."

That state is a world unto itself, whose delusion and fantasy extend far beyond Disneyland.

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parent dependents to also provided for.

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which all our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

 

Recently on one of the major networks it was reported that the State of California is facing a massive budget deficit, with the citizens of California screaming.

It appears Governor Schwartzenegger's solution to the catastrophy, one which again has a great deal to do with the past and current administration's governmental excesses from all reports, is now to request that the citizens of the United States bail out California much like the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts (and it appears, the Big Three auto manufacturers).

California, the home of such programs as "Californication," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The OC" and the like, is hardly an innocent victim in their predicament, but a state who has built it's own reputation on fantasy and excess.

Apparently, it is those hard working Midwesterners and farmers that those in the Golden State now wish to come to their rescue, in addition to the out of work steel and auto workers, and those now homeless due to many of the practices of a number of banks who make their home also in the Golden State.

My former home state, Arizona, is now full of the refugees from California who essentially have destroyed that state with their excesses, and are working on destroying my former home in leaps and bounds with their liberal agendas.

Governor Schwartenegger, here are some suggestions for restoring economic viability in California:

1. Reduce all governmental salaries by at least 25%, in recognition that you, and all public employees of that state, also have blue ribbon health, dental, and pension plans that a good 2/3's of the private sector employees in California do not have (with the exception of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Nobb Hill).

Place freezes on additonal new hires until the size of government in the state can actually bear relevance to need, i.e., since the cities and local governments are state actors of the State of California, both legally and by judicial interpretation, just maybe your bicameral legislature could be parred down to a unicameral one such as Nebraska has, which is actually more in accordance with the federal Constitution, since there are only three "legal" entities within it - the federal government, the states, and the people.

And Senators rarely represent the municipalites solely in state government, but usually also large corporate interests just as the House members now do although elected through supposedly "democratic" local elections. Although those candidates merely are representatives of political party and corporate interests, by and large, and many of which funded by out of district slush money.

The U.S. Senators were actually provided to represent "the states" with the U.S. House then representing the people. The 17th Amendment somehow changled all that and is why we now have Senators courted by foreign governments and corporate lobbyists, since if elected by the state legislatures as originally provided, they were accountable to the states themselves.

>Such a change in California government would result in shorter legislative sessions, less bureaucracy, and less costs to the taxpayers with greater accessibility, and would also be a great idea for the other 48 states which have yet to recognize this "double whammy, double bureaucracy" excess. What a concept!

2. Institute gaming and gambling just like the State of Arizona and so many other states across the nation have rather recently done, and then in conjunction with the new social drinking taxes, have officers wait outside the casinos to pick up the low level DUIs after the casinos have plied them with alcohol. Either they lose the money in the casinos to the state, or just in the event they win or truly do not excessively imbibe, they lose it in the DUI fines and fees after leaving.

Then put them in the privatized county court system, so that the state, counties and cities can at least get their share of the federal pork pie for those expenses and incarcerations by the head factored according to arrests and convictions made by juries now which are becoming increasing comprised of many state or municipal employees to insure those conviction rates stay high and those dollars continue to flow in, or been removed entirely so that the city or county judge can act as the state revenue agent instead.

Oh, and also install statewide those speeding cameras so that you can gain another several billions on those progressive fines and fees for speeding violations based upon those fallible machines. That should bring in billions!!!

Alas, though I see that the State Supreme Court is going to "review" the legality this week of Proposition 8, which passed recently under a citizen's initiative restricting marriages to two sex couples.

Overturn that "people determined" decision due to budgetary needs, and of course you can look forward to all those licenses fees, and the "for profit" court costs and fees for all those divorces sometime in the future. Not to mention all those added taxes that will be necessary in order to provide those courts for at least some of those divorces if only 1/3 of them end up in the courts eventually.

And also those future campaign contributions from the California Bar Association Domestic Relations Division due to the gold mine such an action would engender for their corporate interests in state permission and licensures of personal relationships, rather than simple recordations of these oral or written personal contracts.

Nor does this take into consideration the effect and costs of those wildfires of yours due to the aging 60's hippie environmentalists and their offspring, nor the "global warming" scam supported by Hollywood in order to now tax the air we breathe.

I don't think Californians should be screaming, but the rest of the nation.